Speech given during the ongoing debates at the Vatican conference
concerning genetically modified organisms.

It is my pleasure today to present a summary of current scientific views
of the potential positive and negative effects of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). My comments will be based primarily on the Study
Document on the Use of Genetically Modified Food Plants to Combat
Hunger in the World (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2001), also taking
into account the statement by the academies of science of Brazil, China,
India, Mexico, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Third World
Academy of Sciences published on their behalf by the Royal Society in
2000 .

These are summary consensus documents that represent well the views
of the world scientific community on the issues involved, and they are
in agreement with other studies published over the past 30 years.

The explosive growth of the human population from 2.5 billion people
in 1950 to 6.3 billion today, coupled with the desire by people around
the world to achieve higher standards of living (more consumption) and
the use of often unsuitable technologies has resulted in the loss of 20%
of the arable land that was available in 1950, and nearly 20% of the topsoil.

Some 700 million people, about equal to the combined populations of
Europe, the United States, and Japan, are literally starving, receiving
less than 80% of the UN-recommended minimum caloric intake, and therefore
unable to experience proper brain development as infants or maintain their
body mass as adults . As many as half of the total population of the world
is malnourished with respect to one or more essential nutrients.

Half of the global population consists of people who are living on less
than $2 per day. Thus there is an urgent need to achieve higher levels
of productivity in agriculture everywhere to help alleviate these problems.

Any effort to deny access to technologies that are demonstrably helpful
in feeding the people of the world must for this reason be judged from
a moral and ethical point of view in relation to its real, not imagined,
effects on human welfare.

It is important in this connection to realize that we are estimated
currently to be consuming the productive capacity of our planet at 120%
of its continuing output. Some 55% of total net terrestrial photosynthetic
capacity is currently being used, wasted, or diverted by human beings;
in addition, we are consuming an estimated 45% of the total sustainable
supplies of fresh water. Our demands for water, about 90% of it used for
agriculture, are growing rapidly, while the water table is dropping precipitously
across wide areas of north China, India, and elsewhere. For these reasons
it is predicted that about half the human population, some 3.5 billion
people, will be living in regions facing severe water shortages by 2025.
We therefore must find improved crops that can tolerate drought better
than those than the strains we cultivate now.

Overall, it is estimated that at least two billion additional people
are likely to be added to the world population before it can reach stability,
and some of the societies in which individuals consume the most are advocating
population growth again now. For all of the countries of the world at
their present population levels to reach the current standard of living
of the industrialized countries would require the productivity of approximately
two additional copies of the planet Earth . All of this must, therefore,
be judged against the background of a world in which a sixth of us are
starving, and half of us are malnourished and living in extreme poverty,
with at least two billion more people being added over the next few decades
and expectations for even greater levels of consumption endemic to human
beings everywhere.

Those who sidetrack new and helpful technologies on the basis of fanciful
and sometimes self-serving arguments must therefore be judged in the light
of the effects of their arguments on people everywhere, and not simply
on the rich societies where most of those who protest the use of modern
technologies enjoy lives of abundance. Colorful and threatening terms
such as "contamination," "release," and "spillage"
have been applied to the cultivation and dissemination of such crops,
not to mention even less reasonable ones, such as "Frankenfoods"
and "Terminator Genes," but these terms, which reflect a lack
of logic and careful consideration, have no place in rational discourse.
In the following remarks, I shall concentrate on scientific questions
but also address some related considerations briefly as a part of my presentation.

First, I would like to mention that questions concerning the acceptance
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the problems that they might
pose have been taken seriously ever since the development of recombinant
DNA technologies 31 years ago (1973). Following conferences and consultations
by the leading molecular biologists, careful containment of the first
organisms produced by the transfer of genes from one unrelated kind of
organism to another, and detailed examination of the results in hundreds
of laboratories throughout the world, it has become clear that there is
nothing intrinsic to the process of genetic modification by the production
of transgenic organisms that makes them unsafe in any respect.

Like the many other methods that have been used to modify crops since
the dawn of agriculture some 10,500 years ago, transgenic methods must
be judged on the basis of their products, and not the methods by which
they were produced. Idiosyncratic arguments are sometimes presented by
those arguing against the adoption of GMOs, presumably for social or other
reasons, but the facts reviewed by thousands of independent scientists
throughout the world for three decades make this point as certain as any
scientific conclusion can be. We should not therefore conduct our discussions
of this matter in an atmosphere of murky, imagined threats, but rather
in the light of world scientific consensus as to the safety of the methods
involved. There is simply no justification for regarding imprecise traditional
methods of transferring genetic traits as safe, but modern precise ones
as unsafe, and we must more forward from that point as rapidly as possible.

Secondly, concerning the use of GMOs to produce food, there is no theory
or set of theories that contradicts the generally accepted conclusion
that those currently in use are safe as food for human beings and domestic
animals, and no single case of illness resulting from consuming foods
produced by GMOs, even though billions of people throughout the world
use them regularly. Most beer and cheese consumed worldwide is made with
the aid of GMOs, as are hundreds of different medicines.

As in the first point, arguments about the lack of safety of these foods
are apparently ideologically driven, lacking a factual basis. Obviously
it would be possible to produce a poisonous food with the help of gene-splicing
techniques, but who would do this or put it on the market? No foods consumed
by human beings are tested as extensively as those produced by GMOs, and
there is no evidence of any lack of safety in such foods. To discuss these
questions on the basis of an imaginary threat to human health is misleading
and ought not to be acceptable to the members of a rational society.

Third, the ecological effects of GMOs differ according to the properties
of the individual transgenic organism. Gene flow between species is a
regular feature of most groups of plants , and, depending on the pollination
systems of the groups involved, may extend over long distances. Studies
recently reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have demonstrated
the Roundup Ready genes in bentgrass can be disseminated more than 20
km to natural populations. When wild or weedy relatives of GM crops grow
near them, it can be assumed, and has been widely demonstrated, that gene
flow is likely to occur .

Consequently, the transgenes introduced into the crops are likely to
be present in some or many of their relatives, the proportion depending
on the selective advantage of that particular gene in the wild or weedy
populations. But then what? It all depends on the role of the transgenes
in the wild or weedy populations. If they are resistant to a particular
herbicide, would that in itself be harmful? Would the ability to produce
natural insecticides make them more serious weeds? Are they likely to
harm natural communities in some unknown way? The kinds of questions we
should be asking would be along the lines of "what if the wild relatives
of sunflower in the United States produced an insecticide? what then?"
rather than, "did the genes escape?" And "Could any kind
of maize survive in nature?" not "What will genetically modified
maize do to natural habitats where it is grown?" Is the spread of
genes from GM bentgrass worse than the spread of other genes from cultivated
plants that has been going on for some 10,500 years? To create such a
straw man flies in the face of
logic: it all depends on the particular characteristics, and not on how
they reached the plants in which they occur.

There is no ecological theory that supports the idea of wild plants
acquiring a transgene and then wrecking havoc in a natural community,
but plenty of examples of introduced, invasive plants that have not been
genetically modified playing such a role. While common sense must be a
guiding principle, it is not logical to imagine consequences that have
never been observed at the cost of denying people access to food or adequate
economic return for their efforts. Simply to repeat the claim that widespread
problems are likely to occur, or that the operation of nature is so mysterious
that we can never know what will happen denies logic and flies in the
face of the available facts at the cost of hungry people who deserve better
treatment from those of us who are so much more fortunate than them.

I have spent my life in fostering efforts to understand biodiversity
and to conserve it, and in helping to build capacity for sustainability
in developing countries around the world. I therefore find it most distressing
that the very techniques that could spare biodiversity and feed hungry
people are so often being retarded for illogical and selfish reasons.
It is unquestionably true that the development of crop agriculture, along
with the domestication of animals, which began about 10,500 years ago
in the eastern Mediterranean region, has been and remains extremely negative
for the survival of biodiversity. The areas devoted to agriculture and
grazing have grown as the human population exploded to its present 6.3
billion. Some 11% of our planet's surface is devoted to the production
of crops, and an additional 20% is grazed, usually unsustainably. The
"cleaner" the agriculture, the worse for biodiversity.

None of this in itself has anything to do with the particular genetic
methods used to produce the crops, although the less land that can be
cultivated for an equivalent amount of production, the better for the
survival of biodiversity in adjacent areas. Nothing is more destructive
to biodiversity that widespread, low-yield, traditional methods of agriculture,
and it is highly misleading to romanticize them, as if all were in harmony
before there were so many of us that agriculture was intensified. The
estinction by Polynesians of about 1,000 species of birds (about a tenth
of the world's total bird species) on the Pacific islands, along with
an unknown number of other kinds of organisms, during a period about about
1,200 years, offers one kind of solid evidence to the fact that all agriculture
(combined in this case with hunting) is highly destructive to biodiversity.
If the world's population is to be fed well, and starvation is be alleviated
for the hundreds of millions of people who are suffering now, agriculture
must become more productive. The development of GM crops, with precisely
determined characteristics that make them survive well in the extremely
diverse places that they are grown promises major increases in productivity
and a greatly enhanced ability to preserve biodiversity.

As to the reduction of diversity in the crops themselves, that is a
long-term process that has little to do with the application of current
methods. It is often argued that GM methods are suitable only for large-scale
agriculture and that their introduction has led to the reduction eliminated
variety in the crops, but that is simply not the case. Certainly large
farms tend to have less genetic diversity in their crops than an equal
area occupied by small ones, but there is no logical connection between
that observation and the use of transgenic methods to produce the crops.
For example, more than 500 strains of soybeans in the United States, each
adapted to a particular agricultural situation, have been genetically
engineered, and the whole array of strains that was present initially,
with all of its genetic diversity, is still being used commercially.

There is no reason in principle why minor crops grown by small-scale
farmers cannot be genetically modified to make them more nutritious, better
able to grow in dry or saline habitats, or whatever else is desired, thus
actually helping to maintain crop genetic diversity. If smaller amounts
of pesticides are applied, the case with many GM crops, the survival of
biodiversity will be enhanced; for example, an estimated 70 million birds
are killed by pesticide applications on croplands annually in the United
States alone! Lessening the use of pesticides will also help to alleviate
the estimated 500,000 cases of sickness and 5,000 deaths around the world
that occur annually now as a result of the indiscriminate use of pesticides.

Despite heavy applications of pesticides, especially in Europe, there
is an estimated global loss of $244 billion in crops per year, and the
applications of these chemicals have serious negative consequences for
the environment. In this connection, it has been estimated that if half
the maize, oilseed rape, sugar beet, and cotton grown in Europe were genetically
modified to resist their pests, there would be a reduction of about 14.5
million kilograms of formulated pesticide product applied, a saving of
approximately 20.5 million liters of diesel, and the prevention of the
emission of 73,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Clearly, we must develop new productive, low-input systems of agriculture,
a strategy that would involve the modification of many current practices.
These efforts will be aided substantially by modern genetic methods. Cotton
is already a global success story, and those who cultivated GM cotton
are clearly better off than ever before.

In view of these considerations, it is remarkable that the major negative
finding of the British study of GM crops reported in 2003 was that biodiversity
was lower in the fields where GM crops were grown  because weed
control was more effective there! No college of agriculture in the world
teaches that it is better for productive agriculture to include more weeds,
and very few places  certainly none where hungry and needy people
live in the developing world  have the luxury of managing their
primary fields in such a way as to encourage anything but productivity.
If all of the agriculture in the world were run in such a way as to encourage
weeds, there would be many more starving people, a situation that we should
very much wish to avoid. Concentrating agriculture as much as possible
in highly productive lands and encouraging biodiversity in uncultivated
lands managed in other suitable ways is the path that we logically should
follow.

As Per Pinstrup-Anderson, a leader in efforts to feed the hungry and
poor people of the world, has put it, it seems natural to people in Europe
and other more developed regions to use medicines produced through genetic
modification, but to a mother in a famine-struck region of Africa, the
disease she and her children suffer from is hunger and the cure is food.
The efforts of organizations such as Greenpeace to block efforts to feed
people adequately throughout the world by battling biotechnology resolutely
are doubtless helpful to the finances of that organization, which does
not spend a cent of its money will go to alleviate starvation or to help
people, but they are outrageous, scientifically unfounded, and should
be rejected out of hand by any moral person.

In our reports, we of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences stressed that
it is a moral imperative for the fruits of all new technologies to be
made available to all of the worlds people, and more especially
to those who are truly needy. Neither corporations nor wealthy nations
have the right to block access to such technologies, and there is in fact
a general willingness to encourage full access to them. The distribution
is limited in part by the relatively small numbers of scientists in most
developing countries, not much more than 10% of the worlds total
in the less developed countries, which include 82% of the worlds
people. This factor makes it difficult for many countries to evaluate
on their own terms the fruits of scientific and technological advance
in the rest of the world.

All countries should develop their own standards for the evaluation of
GMOs and other technologies, either nationally or regionally, and put
in place regulations that will serve them properly in such matters. In
these considerations, the matter of intellectual property rights must
be considered carefully and not be allowed to block the access of the
poor to modern innovations that can help to alleviate their condition.
In addition, the application of transgenic methods to the many different
systems of agriculture that are appropriate to different conditions around
the world should be accelerated and treasured for the value that it promises.

For example, the development of transgenic rice resistant to salt water
using genes from mangroves, being carried out at the M.S. Swaminathan
Research Institute in Chennai, offers great promise all around the shoreline
of India, where the sea is encroaching on croplands for which the existing
supplies of fresh water are inadequate. The development of protein-rich
potatoes that is being pursued in India, China, and South Africa is but
one example of a simple strategy that will serve well to help alleviate
hunger and poverty. In general, public-sector research adequate to provide
benefit for poor farmers in developing countries should be supported at
a much higher level than is the case now.

World trade, which is one important element that will affect the way
that the growing 6.3 billion of us learn to live together, can be an instrument
for good or ill depending on how it is organized. World standards are
required, as are mechanisms for reaching agreements that benefit people
everywhere. GMOs are one very small part of such trade, but one that has
proven controversial and has been used in various ways to limit commerce.
We must move to a period of reconciliation, one in which our common needs
are taken into account, and not only on the basis of what is considered
good in one region or another, but what the scientific and social facts
may be. Doing so would allow the greater number of people to lead healthy
lives that are worthy of we who live in rich countries.

The drive to feed hungry people and to redress the morally unacceptable
imbalances that exist around the world should take precedence over other
considerations; in this case there are no valid scientific objections
to utilizing these technologies with due consideration to the implications
of each new proposed transgenic crop for the environment.

In conclusion, one might well ask why a general ban on GM foods and
the cultivation of GM crops exists in Europe. In view of the lack of scientific
evidence that such cultivation would be harmful, one can only conclude
that the reasons for the ban are emotional, personal, and political. The
major drop in genetic research in Europe over the past five years or so
clearly has to do with this ban. Extended, it will continue to limit greatly
the potentially important fruits of European research in this area and
indeed to threaten the continent's economic development. Where does the
gain for anyone lie in the perpetuation of this situation?

Whatever policy might be adopted for Europe, persuading governments responsible
for the lives of hundreds of thousands of starving people in Africa to
forego food aid on the basis of politically or economically motivated
disinformation seems to me to constitute a serious crime against humanity.
I maintain that those responsible for this misinformation bear a responsibility
for the lives of the people who are dying, and urge them to begin to deal
rationally with the situation by allowing the fruits of human ingenuity
to be applied to the solution of the extremely serious problem of hunger.

Fortunately, India and China, as well as many of the countries in Latin
America, have decided to utilized GM crops to improve their economies
and the nutrition of their people, which leaves Africa and some countries
of South East Asia, notably Thailand, left to be pushed hard by the European
Community on the issue. It is important to keep in mind that all of this
controversy is taking place without a single case of human or animal sickness
or environmental problem anywhere in the world reliably attributed to
GM crops!

If allegations that the European Union or individual nations are funding
pressure groups such as Greenpeace or "The Catholic Institute for
International Relations" (not affiliated with the Vatican, and perhaps
not officially with the Roman Catholic Church) are true, they clearly
indicate a misuse of taxpayer funds to support ideological causes that
are unsupported and harmful to the development of Europe and its individual
countries.

It is exceedingly difficult to understand why public spokespeople such
as former U.K. Minister Michael Meacher persist in making idiosyncratic
and scientifically unfounded comments about this area. Such statements
have affected a majority of European consumers and sadly led them to believe
that great dangers are lurking somewhere in the practice of this particular
kind of genetics. Their beliefs are doubtless sincere, but unfortunate
for the future of European science and for the hungry people of the world.
At any rate, for them to welcome the use of transgenic technology for
beer, cheese, and drugs, while denying it to those in need of food, seems
to me to be truly obscene.

Loving people throughout the world in a truly Christian way demands much
more of us in return for the privileges that we enjoy.